Last I heard, it was court tomorrow

 

ST and Lies reported 3, including Heathcotes mob

 

KA said that was old news, leaving 2

 

 

Now, I can see HMRC is definitely a club issue,but the other is Sport Shield

 

If we assume KA can deal with HMRC debt - I'd have been happier if he had sorted that one already, tbf- that 'just' leaves SS and blumarble

 

If the court agrees to wind up SS, do we know what that means and also the impact on BWFC

Edited May 21, 20179 yr by Casino

thank you for the response

 

My understanding is (I'm the same as any other fan on here when it comes to this type of thing)  the  ACV  prevents a secret sale, it doesn't however prevent or restrict any future financing, its there to protect the stadium from being sold off..

 

which is my understanding

 

it also doesnt force the owner into accepting any offer from the ST

 

do we agree?

 

We will be starting the election process in the next few weeks, I can't give any specific dates until after our next meeting,

but they are at the top of the agenda

 

 

i suppose thats something

 

 

 

moving on

 

do you feel that the ST has the support of a majority of wanderers fans

 

 

fwiw, i dont think you have

 

a cynic might suggest you removed the membership fee as otherwise the membership numbers (which i believe to be about 3k?) would have been decimated

 

in view of the fact that many think you dont carry the support of the membership, should all the existing board not put themselves up for re election?

 

 

ps appreciate you answering the questions

 

we would happily allow you to put your side of the story on here, so long as you agreed to take questions

 

its up to you if you fancy it, but the offer is there

Edited September 23, 20178 yr by Casino

This type of engagement from the trust is welcomed in my book and something the trust should have been doing across all the sites since day one, to harness support and explain their point - they should be posting on every site regularly.

 

Hopefully this is the start of the engagement. Not everyone on here will agree with what the ST is trying to push but least it's being discussed and all information is out there for debate (see the Brexit thread where you know Salford/Mounts would be able to get together for a beer even though their views are so extreme - on that). We can also harness some excellent ideas and supporters if channelled correctly (local and far reached views).

 

Given the onfield issues the supporters being one is all we have at present.

 

The trust appear to have an issue with the Anderson's that many fans are not currently seeing (me included) - WHY? Explain this and a lot of the I'll feeling towards the trust may be reasoned with

Edited September 23, 20178 yr by SalfordOriginal

You're right...The owner doesn't have to accept any offer from the ST

 

That's a difficult one, depends which day you ask I suppose...for instance, over the last four weeks, after sponsoring the academy players and the positive sound bites from within the club, plus the uncertainty of the BluMarble thing,  we attracted nearly 400 new paid up members...

 

But when the owners of the club are negative towards us, for doing exactly what a Supporters Trust is set up to do,

then obviously we have to deal with alot of negative reactions...

some of which are justified... for the mere fact we're a little slow to respond sometimes, but alot of that is down to man power and we really do have day jobs

 

The main reason we suspended the subscriptions was 2 fold...first of all, because of the way we where set up (remember that January meeting) Supporters direct advised us that until we opened a bank account, we couldn't take a penny off supporters so they suggested we take pledges....

 

As you may remember, this is what we did.... over 6800 pledges were taken before the bank account was actually active (bank account was a nightmare because it was a benefits society which apparently takes around six week due to money laundering regulations) that kind of response was unprecedented and took everybody by surprise, even Supporters' direct

 

We then had the task of invoicing the Pledgee's...the problem we had was that a large number of supporters who had signed up, actually thought they where full members... so we decided not to invoice pledgees, instead just appeal to all those who signed up to pay their £10 subscription fee...  of which around 2650 became paid up members (share holders....currently stands a 3437)

 

Having discussed it and going through the model rules and the legality of it  (to vote a member had to hold a share and to hold a share we had to charge a subscription),  we decided to split the membership into Members, and Shareholders (fully paid up members)

 

Money raised through a subscription can only legally be used to run and administer the supporters Trust (can't be used to sponsor players or help finance anything else) and we'd secured sponsorship from a number of sources, plus the money made through the legends game, we decided we didn't need £10 per year from ordinary fans,

 

we could fund ongoing administration through sponsorship and Corporate membership, (for me personally, I'd hope every single Wanderers Supporter would eventually become a member of the ST and not only have their say, but be represented, instead of being treated like customer)

 

The Supporters trust isnt't about what I want, or what Daniel Izza wants, its a collective, its what we all want, the more people who are involved the more diverse it becomes

 

I read stuff on here and totally agree with a lot of it, I also disagree with a lot too, but that's what being a football supporter is all about...

Edited September 23, 20178 yr by josh8

I don't mind coming on here from time to time... there are a cpl of posters on here who know me personally and have known me for a long time...and I'm going back to when I had the Butchers Arms in Swinton and even before if you're really old like me..   

 

but if it becomes abusive, then I haven't got time for that...

I don't mind coming on here from time to time... there are a cpl of posters on here who know me personally and have known me for a long time...and I'm going back to when I had the Butchers Arms in Swinton and even before if you're really old like me..   

 

but if it becomes abusive, then I haven't got time for that...

 

 

its too late after a 3-0 home defeat to take it all in

 

in fact typing 3-0 home defeat makes me think northampton, bobby barnes

 

 

let me have tomorrow to catch up

 

 

what i can do is give you a commitment that if you stick around and answer some questions, it wont get abusive

its too late after a 3-0 home defeat to take it all in

 

in fact typing 3-0 home defeat makes me think northampton, bobby barnes

 

 

let me have tomorrow to catch up

 

 

what i can do is give you a commitment that if you stick around and answer some questions, it wont get abusive

How are you going to stop it getting abusive you bald prick ? ????

But on a more serious note if someone from the Trust is going to try and engage on here seems only fair to treat that offer with respect.

My understanding is (I'm the same as any other fan on here when it comes to this type of thing)  the  ACV  prevents a secret sale, it doesn't however prevent or restrict any future financing, its there to protect the stadium from being sold off..

 

Supporters Direct, who's advice we took regarding this, will be giving an independent view on how an ACV can impact a club and why it is important for a club like ours to have this safeguard,

 

I for one, and I'm sure everybody on here... would not want to be left in a situation like Coventry...!

 

We will be starting the election process in the next few weeks, I can't give any specific dates until after our next meeting,

but they are at the top of the agenda

 

Just for the record, Coventry never owned the Ricoh Arena.

 

They sold their own ground, Highfield Road, pocketed the money and became tenants at the Ricoh which was basically commissioned and owned by the local council and the Higgs Charity.

 

The local Coventry ST decided NOT to obtain an ACV on the Ricoh in November 2013 -

 

http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/trust_to_consider_plans_for_ricoh_arena_to_become_an_acv_813017/index.shtml

 

And as recently as a year ago the Coventry club Chairman accused their ST if deliberately undermining the club by trying to usurp the running of it by a fan led takeover -

 

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-chairman-accuses-sky-12038283

 

 

Coventry my well be a basket case club but they sold their souls to have a brand new stadium which they could not afford to build so they agreed that if their local council would built it for them they would play there as tenants.

 

It was the clubs new owners (since Coventry had moved into the Ricoh) Sisu, which failed to pay the rent on the ground that ultimately led them to being evicted originally and since they returned on a two years lease that expires at the end of the season, the owners of the Ricoh have decided not to renew their lease.

 

Coventry's problems have all revolved around not paying their rent (at a pre-existing ageed amount) - and if they had they would no doubt still be there now.

 

 

To use Coventry as a scare tactic in respect of what might happen if the ACV on the Macron is removed is totally misleading and factually wrong.

Bobby Barnes... now there's a blast from the past, also highlights just how quickly things can change...

 

On today's game...I thought we where on it  for the first half hour, then as soon as the goal went in.. it could have been 6 or 7 by the end,... 

 

All hope not lost yet though... Brighton lost 9 games last season...

Oh wow a word count type-off between Sluffy and Josh8. Gonna be a 170 pager this thread

It isn't about using Coventry as a scare tactic, I'm not even aware of how or why Coventry don't own their ground

What I am aware of is... they don't and they have a fractured relationship with the landlord, which at one point saw them play their home games 60 miles away from Coventry...

 

We actually own our Stadium and I for one feel alot safer keeping it like that...

Edited September 23, 20178 yr by josh8

Oh wow a word count type-off between Sluffy and Josh8. Gonna be a 170 pager this thread

Me and Sluffy have history, which I think fuels his dislike to the trust.... I can assure you there won't be any 'type-off's' from me...

Izza. You need to get rid of him asap. That's all I can say without being abusive.

It isn't about using Coventry as a scare tactic, I'm not even aware of how or why Coventry don't own their ground

What I am aware of is... they don't and they have a fractured relationship with the landlord, which at one point saw them play their home games 60 miles away from Coventry...

 

We actually own our Stadium and I for one feel alot safer keeping it like that...

Keeping the stadium is massive for me. I'd be interested to know what this 're financing that can't be done according to KA actually means?

He might not have come across too well sometimes, but you have to bare in mind he comes from a legal background, who unlike you and me can sometimes just speaks our minds and bollox to the consequences,

 

Daniel just can't afford to do that publicly,...and as such can come across as a little institutional...

 

but in reality hes a very funny guy with a wealth of knowledge and is an avid wanderers fan... oh...and if we had to pay someone with half his legal breain, we'd be skint now...

Keeping the stadium is massive for me. I'd be interested to know what this 're financing that can't be done according to KA actually means?

All I know for a fact is... the ACV does not prevent any form of financing...unless of course the lender wants to acquire the stadium at some point and would need planning permission for change of use or even a new Normid Super Store....?

The Supporters trust isnt't about what I want, or what Daniel Izza wants, its a collective, its what we all want, the more people who are involved the more diverse it becomes

As it stands, the ST is a toxic brand. Bridgey, Izza, Bowers and his mate Firthy, all hijacked it for their own ends. The real ST needs to distance itself from these people or it is dead in the water.

It isn't about using Coventry as a scare tactic, I'm not even aware of how or why Coventry don't own their ground

What I am aware of is... they don't and they have a fractured relationship with the landlord, which at one point saw them play their home games 60 miles away from Coventry...

 

We actually own our Stadium and I for one feel alot safer keeping it like that...

 

They played their games 60 miles from Coventry because they didn't pay their rent.  They taken to court for the money, didn't pay and had to go into Administration.

 

Don't forget it is Coventry City Council and the Higgs Charity (which is based in Coventry for the benefit of Coventry and the surrounding area -

 

http://www.higgscharity.org.uk/

 

...that joint own the stadium.

 

Do you really think their own council and local charity FORCED them to move 60 miles away to play games?

 

In fact they actually threatened to sue Northampton Town if they continued to host Coventry games - that's how much they wanted the club back!

 

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ricoh-arena-sue-northampton-town-5074046

 

Obviously the club owning its own stadium is ideal but pride goes before a fall they say.

 

If Anderson can't afford to pay the bills, and no one wants to buy him out, what is he supposed to do other than sell off some of the assets?

 

 

As for anything personal against you or the trust, there's nothing on my part.

 

 

 

Here's a question for you - If Anderson clearly wants to sell the ground and the ST have all these individuals and businesses of 'high net worth', then why don't you sit down together and do a deal?

 

That would give Mr Anderson the money he wants and give the ST the guardianship of the clubs ground forever.

 

Everyone wins.

 

So how about it?

He might not have come across too well sometimes, but you have to bare in mind he comes from a legal background, who unlike you and me can sometimes just speaks our minds and bollox to the consequences,

 

Daniel just can't afford to do that publicly,...and as such can come across as a little institutional...

 

but in reality hes a very funny guy with a wealth of knowledge and is an avid wanderers fan... oh...and if we had to pay someone with half his legal breain, we'd be skint now...

I get that, but it needed to be done in the background, the damage has already been done.

 

All the negative, anti-BWFC comments he's made on his twitter account make him look like a shithouse. Again, given his involvement in the ST, were ones he couldn't afford to make. But he did.

Edited September 23, 20178 yr by Carlos

I'm not really bothered about who did what and to whom... what bothers me is that its always the innocent supporters who suffer the consequences... History will tell you that its nearly always bad management that causes football clubs to fail, but that's no comfort for me when I'm having to travel to Barnsley (63m) every other week to see my teams home games..and the 'bad management' have moved on to pastures new...

 

I  personally empathise with the likes of Wimbledon, Luton, Portsmouth and Coventry... It doesn't really matter how or why they got into the situation they found themselves in... it really is 'there for the grace of god go I'

 

As for you other point, KA hasn't revealed why he wants the AVC lifting... so not too sure he wants to sell the ground...

He's

 

I get that, but it needed to be done in the background, the damage has already been done.

All the negative, anti-BWFC comments he's made on his twitter account make him look like a shithouse. Again, given his involvement in the ST, were ones he couldn't afford to make. But he did.

 

I don't know what comments he's made ...but I can assure you he's definitely not anti BWFC... this guy travels the length and breadth of this country watching the whites...and I mean.... even Scotland for friendlies...

They played their games 60 miles from Coventry because they didn't pay their rent. They taken to court for the money, didn't pay and had to go into Administration.

 

Don't forget it is Coventry City Council and the Higgs Charity (which is based in Coventry for the benefit of Coventry and the surrounding area -

 

http://www.higgscharity.org.uk/

 

...that joint own the stadium.

 

Do you really think their own council and local charity FORCED them to move 60 miles away to play games?

 

In fact they actually threatened to sue Northampton Town if they continued to host Coventry games - that's how much they wanted the club back!

 

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ricoh-arena-sue-northampton-town-5074046

 

Obviously the club owning its own stadium is ideal but pride goes before a fall they say.

 

If Anderson can't afford to pay the bills, and no one wants to buy him out, what is he supposed to do other than sell off some of the assets?

 

 

As for anything personal against you or the trust, there's nothing on my part.

 

 

 

Here's a question for you - If Anderson clearly wants to sell the ground and the ST have all these individuals and businesses of 'high net worth', then why don't you sit down together and do a deal?

 

That would give Mr Anderson the money he wants and give the ST the guardianship of the clubs ground forever.

 

Everyone wins.

 

So how about it?

We shouldn't be selling the ground full stop.

 

If the bills can't be paid, the club shouldn't of been took on.

I'm not really bothered about who did what and to whom... what bothers me is that its always the innocent supporters who suffer the consequences... History will tell you that its nearly always bad management that causes football clubs to fail, but that's no comfort for me when I'm having to travel to Barnsley (63m) every other week to see my teams home games..and the 'bad management' have moved on to pastures new...

 

I  personally empathise with the likes of Wimbledon, Luton, Portsmouth and Coventry... It doesn't really matter how or why they got into the situation they found themselves in... it really is 'there for the grace of god go I'

 

As for you other point, KA hasn't revealed why he wants the AVC lifting... so not too sure he wants to sell the ground...

 

Are you saying then that you don't want anybody to ever have an opportunity to make potentially bad management decisions for the club - because if you are this can only imply that you want ownership of the club for yourself - and for you to make all the ownership decisions from then on?

 

Is this the policy of the ST Board? - it would certainly explain its anti-Anderson stance.

 

Are your membership aware of this?

 

Did they give you a mandate to pursue this course of action?

I'm not really bothered about who did what and to whom... what bothers me is that its always the innocent supporters who suffer the consequences... History will tell you that its nearly always bad management that causes football clubs to fail, but that's no comfort for me when I'm having to travel to Barnsley (63m) every other week to see my teams home games..and the 'bad management' have moved on to pastures new...

 

I  personally empathise with the likes of Wimbledon, Luton, Portsmouth and Coventry... It doesn't really matter how or why they got into the situation they found themselves in... it really is 'there for the grace of god go I'

 

As for you other point, KA hasn't revealed why he wants the AVC lifting... so not too sure he wants to sell the ground...

 

So if you don't even know if he wants to sell the ground or not why has the ST made a concerted effort to publically imply that he is?

Are you saying then that you don't want anybody to ever have an opportunity to make potentially bad management decisions for the club - because if you are this can only imply that you want ownership of the club for yourself - and for you to make all the ownership decisions from then on?

 

Is this the policy of the ST Board? - it would certainly explain its anti-Anderson stance.

 

Are your membership aware of this?

 

Did they give you a mandate to pursue this course of action?

 

 

 

Nothing in what I've said suggested anything like that...I, nor any of the ST board members have any ambition what so ever of owning or running this club, we barely have the time to run the trust, let alone a club.. (we all work full time)

 

All we want to do is to preserve the club, so we can carry on doing what some have us have been doing for the last forty odd years... traveling to up and down the country to support BWFC... oh... and also make sure our home games remain at the macron..

Edited September 24, 20178 yr by josh8